Re: require (was: Re: Hooks in minor modes)

[Emanuel Berg]

Jean Louis wrote:

>>>> It seems it cannot see the file in its own directory,
>>>> (push "." load-path) don't help it seems...?
>>>
>>> If you just push "." to load-path that may cause every
>>> future current directory to be the load-path
>> 
>> "May cause", isn't that the intention and what's wrong
>> with that?
>
> If I do (push "." load-path) then maybe I did that in ~/
> directory, where I expect to find my-library.el and when
> I switch to ~/tmp directory and try to load my-library.el it
> would not work as now "." is inside of ~/tmp and not ~/

?

Well yes, but that is the _intention_, so I don't understand
why you say that. If I OTOH would want ~/tmp why would I try
to point to that with "."? why would I do that?
instead I would add it hard-coded. but I only want ~/tmp when
that's where I am and that is what "." means.

>> I have . first in the shell PATH as well to execute scripts
>> there quickly, but also to give precedence if some binary
>> somewhere deep in the system has the same name.
>
> Maybe good, I just don't put executables everywhere, so
> I never had "." in my life in the shell PATH. Sure is
> working if you need it.
>
> It is not similar to "." in load-path in Emacs.

?

It should be exactly the same only one is in and for the shell
the other ditto Emacs?

> If you just add "." that means current directory, and in
> Emacs you can easily switch current directory. [...]

Again, this is the INTENTION so again I don't understand why
you say this is the reason why it's a bad idea???

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal